The Dillard Report

No Party Line Here...

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:16:00 +0000

Here it is, 2012! An important year for this Grand Republic. Or so we would think!

This election cycle will be a deciding factor in our future as a free society. As always we are one election away from being succumbed by the socialist agenda. In general, the citizenry will tend to follow the liberal-left media instead of doing the research.

An example of such can be seen in the everyday exercise, or lack thereof in our very own inherent rights to liberty and freedom. I cannot tell you how many times when a cycle of election is upon us, that I do not hear this horrid phrase, "Why should I vote for one crook over another?"

I always have to counter that with my opinionated views. The very problem with todays society is the lack of interest in the keeping intact, our inherent freedom to make a difference. With just one question, or perhaps a mere vote can change the outlook on such liberty. There have been many elections for the Presidency that have been decided by such a close vote.

In the election of 1800 the vote was so close it had to be decided by the House of Representatives. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were close enough in popular and electoral vote that the decision forced to the floor of the House. In those days the President and Vice-President were decided by the first and second placing in the election. As we now know, Jefferson became President, As for Burr, he was elected to the Vice-Presidency and would later taint his own and political future as well as that of the nation.

There were many more such close elctions. The elections of 1844, 1848, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1916, 1960, 2000, and 2004. We can all remember the latest of these as being Bush vs. Gore and Bush vs. Kerry.

In my research, the closest election without going to a House vote was 1960. Kennedy (D) defeated Nixon (R) by and Electoral vote of 84 while only carrying a slight margin of .2% popular vote. Just think about the repercussion of what would have happened if a few more voters would have attributed the polls. The same could have been said for the most recent Bush election fiascoes.

Now to the matter at hand. The vote is more than just a selection. It is a right, although the "duopoly" might state differently as it being a privelege. Through our founding documents we have been tendered an inherent duty and responsibility for this right of a vote.

We the people are granted the right of the one true authority by both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Not to mention the Bill of Rights gives us a voice towards such in the freedom of speech and the redress of greivance. Although there are many who will deny this, the only answer that should be given in redress to such is "...read the Constitution".

The First Amendment gives heed to the citizen. In its given authority, We the people offer, through election, representative body to assert the effect of the citizens' voice. It is our duty and responsibility to assure that these duties are performed with and in defense of the Constitution and all that it represents. The way to do that is the election.

Our vote does count. Not as one, but as a whole. Your opinion is and should be your voting precognition. Basically meaning, when in doubt in who or what to vote for, it is best to go with the one that represents you personally. In presentation of such statement I will use myself as an example in how I use my opinion in deciding my casting. When I look at the candidate or proposition the first thing I look at is how the person is dressed. An example, if the candidate is saying they understand my needs and wants, yet this candidate is wearing a suit more expensive than my whole wardrobe. I have to ponder can this person really understand me, and how can they represent me.

This is just a last resort measure. The first and foremost would be to research the issues and decide how close the issues and the candidate resemble my own. When in doubt about such a decision I will most assumingly vote out the incumbent. This reasoning being my own version of term limitation.

Finally, I will get to my final banter on the subject matter. There is a genuine misunderstanding of the Primary and Caucus setup. These are matters of private party convention. Meaning, if you are not affiliated with that party then do not get involved. Now, there are some that will beckon the rights of open primary. There is no such thing as an open primary. If it is open it is an election, and therefore a later election is not needed. The primary ballot is private party business, and if you are not affiliated then stay out of it. This is clearly meant for the liberal-left media in their hawking the nomination outcome.

As for myself, I am rendering a no-show as a party voter at the primary. I will request a ballot for non-party and question matters.

This is One Man's Opinion, and as the First Amendment is still intact let this be my word on the matter.

Tea for the pity party!

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:19:00 +0000

Occupy! Let's just take a moment to ascertain the heart of the matter. What exactly is this Occupy grouping? Supposedly, the supporters are trying to show redress towards the Wall Street executives and their supposed corrupt dealings. Is this the true reason?

If asked, I am sure there are varying answers to this question. The liberal-biased media of the masses want us to think that this no more different than what they refer to as the “Tea-Bagger Affair”. This so-called comparison is, albeit more than a little off kilter.

Let us first take this matter apart by pointing out the differences. While the Tea Party rallies are geared towards a direct redress of the improper governance, by the elected bureaucracy. The Occupation crowd seems to lay premise that the full brunt of their problems are derived from that of these Wall Street executives. My question would have to be, “How have these executives caused the woes of these young fire brands?”

The Occupy crowd seems to be woeful in their beckoning of a pity party. From what I have seen and heard these crowds have done nothing more than wreak havoc upon the happenstance of the communities that have endured their cries of woe. Crime has endeavored even higher during their tenuous protests. The cry of rape, drug use, and even murder have shown they are there for mere show and have shown no responsibility for repairing their own mishaps. Seemingly they are all adults that could care less about the economy rather than their own well-being.

Tea Party rallies have had no intent of crime or indifference towards the class of any citizenry. In fact these rallies have amassed abundant crowds that are peaceful in their approach the governments over-encroachment of the constitutional authority. Not to mention they did not ask for pity. They have performed their duties in redressing their grievances, as is inherent in the First Amendment. Shall we venture to say there has been no need for the local police faculties to be installed to quell the rampage of the Tea Party rallies.

Why aren't these college students in class? Could it be that the tenured faculties of these universities have inspired the insolence and mentality of the “all for me” entitlement crowd? They cry of their lack of ability to find work, yet when asked what their degree or major is they say philosophy, or literature. Those are fine studies but where will they get you? They have been lied to, the truth distorted when they should have been told that their would be a lack of a need for such scholarly works in today's society.

Yes, I am calling out the liberal education system. The counsel should have been instilled in the students to the truth that there is no guarantee, no matter what the study. This has been an ongoing situation since the government has delved into our education system. For years, educated scholars have dealt with the faculties at hand, and done what they had to do. Yet, in the past these same scholars made their own way.

When viewing these rallies, the protesters are sparse and little more than a rabble. Yet, if you pay mind to the mass media, all that is heard is how effective and large these protests are. One only has to open their eyes to see that the liberal policy makers want us to see a crisis. The only way that these bureaucrats can show any sign of legitimacy is to show how responsive they are to the needs of their constituency. No matter the criminality the ends make.

Will the truth be reasoned upon the deaf ears of our great nation? Where are the defenders of the Constitution? Is there a way to educate these entitlement-biased crowds?

Occupy Wall Street and their subsequent following all seem to want an overcoming end to the executives and their corporate subsidiaries. The reason I mention this is all the technology seen when observing these same protesters. From computers, tablets, cellphones, and music players, all can be seen in use by the so-called entitled. Big news for the ill-informed, all of these items are derived from the works of these corporate executives. Let us break this down for the liberal, lackluster, ill-educated scholars. The computer you may be using is guess what, corporate manufactured. What about that cellphone that you call home for Mom and Dad to send you more money? And that iPod? Need I lend more in example?

That job you might have been looking for with that degree that your parents probably paid for, where was that coming from? More than likely, the corporation.

I am not rendering a defense of the big corporation, yet I do understand that my salary is paid by such. As are most everyday Americans. This even applies to the independent small business. For every aspect of the business and personal world relies somewhat on these corporate ventures. Today, we would find ourselves barren without such luxuries.

In this world we all have to deal the likes and dislikes of today's society. Yet there are many that believe that their likes are more important than your dislikes. All I can say is overcome.

With this being said, I would like a consensus on where the truth lies. Where should the blame lie? Is it Big Corporate, or Big Brother? Some of you will choose one over the other. As for me, the blame is squarely upon the shoulders of Big Brother. The government lays the groundwork for the regulations on the corporate world, and thus many restrictions. Some of these fall sharply upon the employees of such. These restrictions alter the feasibility of the corporation and its shareholders. In saying such, it must also be understood that the heads of these organizations are not without guilt. They will manipulate the system as much as the other guy.

It can easily be undertaken that a redress of government would inherently flow to the free flow of progress of the corporation and all of its dealings. Perhaps a closer look at the dealings of government might show proof that most if not all of the bureaucracy is hand in hand with these executives. In some cases, they will be found to be the executives of such. It is not the Democrat or the Republican, it is the “Duopoly”. You will find that the careered politician is one and the same as the corporate executive. So where should the blame be? I will leave that to you.

As for the Occupy crowd, go back to school and re-evaluate your educational outlook and alter as to fit for the ability to abstain from such fallacy, or the ability and willingness to ascertain change as your grandparents may have. That is if you don't like the system, then make the change. If you make that change, then you will need to be prepared to partake of the aforementioned fallout of such. It is not a crime groom change, yet there may just be an intent of criminal action if forced.

The easy answer to all I have stated is one question, “What would the Founding Fathers have done?”

In closing I would like to render my recurring statement that this is just One Man's Opinion! You don't have to, and probably won't agree with me. Yet that is the grand gesture our great nation.

“The people are the masters of Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!”--Abraham Lincoln

What is an ordinary American?

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Tue, 20 Sep 2011 01:14:00 +0000

Today Barack Obama beckoned congressional leaders to partake of his new bill. At a cost of $1.5 trillion in wanted tax increases. These increases would be part of his so-called deficit reduction package endured over a ten year period, to a total of $3 trillion. He bantered the use of veto authority to any deficit plan that would not raise taxes on the rich individual and the big corporation. He berated the “duopoly” with his agenda of spend what we don't have and stating his begrudged “...cut our way out”.

His over-rated agenda would be targeted towards the taxpayers in upper-tier incomes. Ten years being his infamous dialogue view of so-called savings, with the withdrawal of armed forces from foreign actions. His proposals conceive tax cuts and public works to create jobs along with the economy.

All the while, the GOP has iterated the idea against any tax increases. The administration's plan would call an end to prior tax cuts and deductions from the Bush administration. Obama referred to such tax cuts and deductions in his asking everyone to pay their fair share.

That is a fine question to ask from someone has partaken of the citizenry in his outlandish spending over abundant vacation sprees. All the while on the taxpayer dime.

He says all of this is not a measure of class warfare, but clearly of math. Not to mention his lamenting of not putting the burden upon his so-called version of ordinary Americans. What exactly is his version of what an ordinary American is?

So far, we have seen him do nothing but declare Tea Party members as unpatriotic and un-American. The last time I saw a Tea Party gathering, guess what I saw. That's right! Ordinary Americans.

Who did I not see? Well, let me see. How about Americans of all races and origins. Americans from all walks of life, and not to mention from different political backgrounds. Yet no unpatriotic and un-American activities.

I would venture to guess his idea of ordinary American would be the faithful blind follower with allegiance to his Marxist agenda.

Mr. Obama, you need to know that I am not one of those followers. I will question any and all of your agenda while you threaten my America. In fact let us all understand that one cannot be seen as an ordinary American when there is no such thing. By definition, ordinary is defined as the parts of a Mass that do not vary from day to day. Although you could classify the citizenry as a whole, as an original definition of a clergyman appointed to attend condemned criminals. So, Sir, if that is your defining of ordinary then we may just find in you and your cronies the vary defined criminals.

I am not quite sure of your prior stimulus package, but I can assuredly say that it stimulated nothing but that of disgruntled economy with no end to be seen in its demise. You, Sir have managed to collapse this Grand Republic and its economy in a mere two and a half years. That is a grand scheme to do in such short manner of time, since it only took us 221 years to build to what we were when you took seat in the people's office.

This man preaches sacrifice, yet where is his sacrifice? He has not rendered any such. He has, however rendered heartbreak upon the economy of this once-trending nation. When will the agony become us? His spending has to stop. We do however need to repair what has been broken. In order to do so we need to take the blame upon ourselves. The truth is We the people... are to blame. Once we have seen our blame we can see clear to repair the situation. The only way to fix that situation is to enact OUR constitutional right redress the government in all its actions. Question with authority, and question often. The election season is upon OUR America, and We the people...will have that redress in OUR vote.

In the end it needs to be known, the vote cannot be taken, only rendered to that what one allows it to be rendered.

The First Amendment has been rendered in these words I have written, and all can be seen these three words, “One Man's Opinion!”

We the People and the vote of recall!

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 03:51:00 +0000

The vote of recall is not only a right, but an ever-more important responsibility and duty. We the People are the one true authority in these united States. The political fiasco, the "duopoly" has maneuvered themselves to usurp the authority for themselves. It is time they are held accountable for their misdeeds and lies. In order to effect such a forced accountability, a constitutional recall is a way to force this accountability and responsibility upon these elitists.

If you find this, in any way true to heart then please sign this petition. Together, We the People will Raise Liberty! Here is the link: We The People Are Raising Liberty!

If we can work together and lay to hand enough signatures, I plan to personally hand it off to as many of the body-elect as may be found. We won't all agree on every measure, so if you are in disagreement, then by all means tell me your ideas. i refuse to sit around and allow these elitists to destroy the Grand Republic.

In freedom of such I call upon the affect of the First Amendment of the duty and right to redress the governing body along with the freedom of speech. Accountability and Responsibility is not only meant for the body-elect, but to the electors as well. We the People are the electors. Let's take our nation back.

As always, this is just "One Man's Opinion!" We don't have to agree, yet we do have the responsibility to respect the freedom of another's freedom of opinion.

Obama, call it what it is!

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Sun, 21 Aug 2011 00:44:00 +0000

Acting stupidly! That is what the Obama administration has proven quite consistently. I would venture to say that our fruitless President has proven this on his own. The liberal-left media tries to play up these misadventures, yet fail to spotlight any goodwill from this man-child's perspective.

His latest case for acting stupidly, has given arm to his narcissistic idealogue. He has the self-absorbed idea that he actually has a say in a sovereign nation's policies. Who the hell does this man think he is to set sanction on the foreign head of state in a sovereign nation. Three times in the recent past, he has given his highly unwanted, or needed advice to three of these sovereign nations. These three nations are Israel, Libya, and now Syria. Each and every time, this advice has gone to deaf ears. Thus rightly so, these heads of state have disregarded his self-anointed hand.

His own guidance of domestic policy has failed to stimulate anything but that of his crony union leagues. Sacrifice seems to be his call to action, yet not applying to himself. There is his mention of bipartisan talks and working together in sacrifice. This being said, he still has not applied this towards himself. In retrospect, where was his budget plan? He said he had one. If so, it was written in invisible ink and never read aloud.

The libbie-left agenda has no place for dissent. Our nation's founding Constitution has been shown that it has also no place in the liberal scheme for their ever-loved welfare state. The entitlement plan has a very prominent fixture in their version of a new America.

I have been affronted with accusations and slanderous finger-pointing. As I believe whole-heartedly in OUR Constitution, and find a unique and natural following of other defenders of this Grand Republic. There is no gain for an elected representative of the people to resort to childish tactics of name-calling. The man-child himself has resorted to such antics and defends his self-anointed edicts as right because of his citizen-appointed moniker of socialist.

He laid the groundwork in his actions. Thus, he has shown proof that his actions are that of a socialist agenda. Let me explain my theory. The Marxist-Leninist ideas of a single-party state creating a planned economy, with state owning the production. With this would be the mingling of a Maoist ideal of a market economy of cooperatives and state-owned production means into an exchange.

This can clearly be represented in the healthcare legislation of 2010. It laid groundwork for an exchange of healthcare through staged co-ops. The state-owned and run exchanges would venture into the realm of total government control over a very short time lapse. Call these exchanges what they are. That of being a socialized welfare state. Entitlements to those that the state decides deserves such care, and how they are represented in the exchanges.

These entitlements are all ill-fated in showing a lack of growth of our economy. Obama and his libbie-left cronies are assuring us the fate of the European model of misadventure. Even that of Canada, a socialized state with a mixed market economy remix of socialism. Entitlements are a detriment to our established nation of freedom. Let's do the math. We are paying taxes on a healthcare plan for several years before it is even engaged. Further job loss from the reduced measure of healthcare units and its suppliers. Not to mention the forced attrition of OUR rights and freedoms, granted thus in the Constitution.

The whole agenda of "tax to the max" and their version of the fair tax. How is it fair to pay fifty percent of everything made. That fifty percent doesn't even include that which the state and local establishment municipalities fare upon the individual. That means as much as seventy-five or eighty percent is to be paid out before the payer even lays sight sight upon the pay. Where is the incentive to show gain.

These individuals who have to pay such fares to a convening authority, are unfairly taxed upon. I am not a rich man, and hardly venture into the realm of middle class. Even I see the advantage of not taxing the wealthy out of such wealth. We have to set the story right. That person with the money is also behind the working and market class employment opportunities.

Well enough of the rant. The facts. Obama has a sore attitude towards OUR nation. He and his cronies are out to destroy OUR very founding. The race issue has abounded in an organized effort to allocate publicity away from the true reality of the harmful agenda of tyrannic scheme of the elected representatives. It is the duopoly and not a single party involved. It is not just the Democrat, but the Republican as well. The real culprit is the silent majority. We the people, are the silent majority. Being thus, we shall be heard.

We the people will stand strong in defense of OUR nation. As for myself, I am invoking my first amendment right to speak my mind. my opinion is just that, One Man's Opinion! In my voice I will represent those that can't or won't defend their own rights and freedoms to such.

Accountability and Responsibility is handed to all of us, and not just to those who are elected to represent us. The election process is just the beginning, and these representatives should be affronted and questioned with authority. We the People, are the authority. Let not a one approach upon this right. Take a moment and read the Constitution.

In closing I will ask that of us take a moment of our all-important time to read the first amendment. Just read one article a day from the Constitution. Start by reading this reciting of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Where is the debt ceiling?

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 19:49:00 +0000

The debt ceiling debate is wry with offense and counter-offense. Conservatives were looking for a fall in government spending, while the liberal wing were hailing more spending and new taxes. The Obama Administration just wanted their way, or so it seems.

Look, Obama hasn't brought anything to the table. He hasn't presented any proposals as to the debt ceiling. He has just invoked the liberal-left tactic of fear. His rhetoric on not being able to guarantee that social security checks, or other such would be sent out after August second. Of course he couldn't guarantee it because there are no assurances.

Come on, folks! Think about it for a moment. Every year and a half to two years we have this same fear-mongering. This fear-mongering is not just a ploy of one party but of the duopoly, whether it be death panels or taking the checks away. Neither has a far touched facet, at least in proof.

Now, the Conservative wing is up in arms over the lack in spending cuts by the plan issued by Senate Republican McConnell. It is clear a stalemate is upon the situation, yet is there a correct answer? Yes, there is. “QUIT spending, DON'T raise or promote and increase in taxes!”

This current Republican plan lays out a detailed proposal allowing the President to icrementally raise the debt ceiling three times in the next year and a half without GOP support. The proposal would of course, have to be approved by the House and then signed by Obama. It is however doubted that the House will approve of such measures without the assurance of no tax increases and the absolute cut in spending. The Obama sign-off is most assuredly out of the mark.

The Conservative Republican fringe are seemingly hostile toward the minority leader for giving in and relinquishing any chance of bargain with the White House. The debt ceiling is clearly seen to be raised, and without a “no tax increase or spending cut” clause.

Mitch McConnell has made no new friends, and might as well have lost his own grassroots fringe as to his lack of stomach to face off with the President. Thus he can surely say that he has nearly turned his back upon the comeuppance of the Tea Party in sending the GOP to a controlling interest in government affairs throughout the country in the midterm elections last year.

This plan allows for the advancement of national debt to an ever-increasing surge, while any cuts proposed are seen to be eye-candy and never to be of any real value. The only thing that comes to mind on this matter is “Tar and Feather”. I thought Senator McConnell was a believer in the Constitution.

A matter of State

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 01:55:00 +0000

The Tenth Amendment is being put to the test by a sitting United States President. That's right, Obama is suing the State of Texas for enforcing its own constitutional rights. With this, I have to ask why is he so adamant about enforcing international law over that of his own constitutional duties of protecting and defending the Constitution.

The Constitution does not show reverence to such international law. It does however render such treaties of international concern to that of Executive oversight with the confirmation of such by the Legislative branch.

Let me explain the matter, as best as I can. Humberto Leal, a Dream Act individual, was convicted of a 1994 rape and murder of a 16 year old female. She was found with bite marks on her remains and her head battered with a rock. As to the record, she was raped before and after death. Is this a punishable offense? I would have to say, YES!

Some might ask what was meant by Dream Act. Quickly referenced, this is an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors. It was first introduced in the United States Senate in 2001. Basically the bill would provide permanent residency to illegal alien students who graduate from U. S. high schools, who have a good moral character. They would have arrived illegally into the United States as a minor, and would have resided in the country for at least five years prior to the enactment.

The bill has been reintroduced several times throughout the last decade in various forms, always falling short of the needed votes. All with varying degrees of requirements and prerequisites. The matter has been sponsored by various bipartisan factions.

With this being stated, I refer to Humberto Leal as a Dream Act individual. I also must reiterate that this Mr. Leal is NOT of a good moral character. Not to mention, had been a resident of the United States since he was two years old, and therefore had no rightful title to that of Mexican citizenship. That is if you abide the liberal agenda of the duopoly and the current sitting President as well.

Mr. Leal has been seen by his so-called Consul of Mexico. The court records show that all due process was given him. He has appealed on all avenues to delay the inevitable. He plead guilty before his arrest was attained, and did not immediately assert his Mexican citizenship until after his arrest. According to the legal guidelines set down by the political left does not allow for the questioning as to the citizenship of an individual. Therefore the accused was given due process of that of a United States Citizen.

The suit filed by the Administration is obviously an elaborate, yet obvious election year ploy for the Hispanic vote. Its case however is to be considered to an over-riding stay of execution. The official standing of the State of Texas as being with its legal dominion to decide such matters. A docket is set for a supreme Court of the United States decision on the matter. It will nonetheless be a delay of such until decision is rendered.

If the Court does not render their hand to that of Leal's fate, his only recourse would be entirely within the realm of Governor Rick Perry. The decision will obviously be a burden upon Perry as he is considering a possible run for President in 2012.

Perry's decision will definitely show whether he is constitutional or a mere arm of the establishment. What will he do? It is a rare but significant matter for a Governor to decide such a matter, and constitutional duty sworn to uphold. The decision is his, and could decide his own political career. I for one, am asking Gov. Perry to perform his duties and follow the requests of the citizens of Texas. This is however a matter for Texas, and not that of the President of the United States.

As a citizen of Indiana, I will not make any request for the matter to go anyway but that of constitutional authority. It is a Texas matter, and all others should have no say.

The only duties of the President and the supreme Court on this matter is the defense of the Tenth Amendment. This right of the State is clearly presented in the United States Constitution.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Plain and simple, the words are clear and concise. I stand strong in my conviction of protecting the rights granted via the Constitution, especially the First Amendment right of freedom of speech and the freedom to practice such in the writing I have presented.

With these rights invoked, “Obama, keep your hands off!”

Who is your candidate?

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 00:41:00 +0000

The Obama Administration is leering towards the almost certain possibility of no second term. The economy has shown no viable improvement, while the administration continues to lament on such. While the GOP has yet to show any sign of a leading “go to” candidate.

There is a menagerie of candidates, yet not one stands alone as the name-maker. The nomination seekers are prominent in notoriety. With the likes of Romney, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, Pawlenty, Johnson, and Cain the candidate field is most certain to attract a wider spectrum of contenders. Possible contenders are Palin, Bachmann, Huntsman, Bush, Perry, Giuliani, Christie, and Daniels. Some of these candidates have formally stated that they would not seek the nomination. We all know what a formal statement means in politics, “Nothing”. Expect the surprise name-maker.

The real question should be, “Which GOP contender will stand the heat of the lurking naysayers?”

It must be stated that Obama can be defeated. His numbers are not where a sitting President should be. His economic policies have not bode well within the domestic and international straits. Not to mention the Bin Laden poll-builder has dissipated to the null and void. It could even be his defense cuts (military cutbacks) will be a detriment to his future contention to that of a win in 2012.

It will assuredly draw down to the matter of contention within the GOP. Will these candidates draw against each other and cause a split in the general election itself. The leading contender will assuredly have to decide the win on their own and not the matter being decided by the liberal media.

One of the biggest inhibitors of the GOP and other third-party candidates is the impression played out by the liberal-left media. These candidates have to set the playing field in their own right and not allow for the selection to placed in the hand of such. A perfect example of the media playing a crucial part in selecting a beatable candidate for the GOP against a Democrat nominee, in the 2008 election cycle. Yes, I am saying that the media picked McCain because he could be easily defeated by the highly unknown Obama.

I am not taking away from the election of Obama, but the fact of the matter was that the opposition was nowhere to be seen. What do you think?

All I am trying to put forward is the idea of educating ourselves on the platform of each and every candidate. With this and the access of public record, we can track and verify such contentions for ourselves. In this day and age of technology, there is no reason to be ignorant on the truth.

Now is the time to research these potential policy makers. Your understanding on these matters is of the utmost importance. The elitists in politics are counting on the ignorant following to give their vote without question. Don't be a part of that following. It is your vote, and that vote is a choice. Regardless of what is said that a vote was stolen, that is total farce. Your vote is given, yet sometimes coerced using the ignorant factor.

When you step into that ballot box don't be caught off guard. Know the candidates and their policies along with their background. If there is any doubt, question the matter.

As always, I am putting forth my own opinion and perspective. The First Amendment allows for such and I will stand firm in defense of such for all to take effect of the same right.

Elusion or Illusion?

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 02:19:00 +0000

Is there anyone in OUR nation's capitol city that has any sense whatsoever? I have to ask the question. The question has an answer, yet I will set upon my own opinion on the matter.

We have a President that seems ignorant of the fact that he has accomplished nothing that is required of his duties assigned by none other than the mainstay of OUR freedom, the Constitution. He has, however accomplished his promise for change. He has under-minded the whole of the citizenry by his use of the “nanny state” agenda of socialist-based destruction of America as we know it.

As for the hope that he promised, I don't see it. I guess the hope is all in the mind's eye of the undeserving entitlement gang. This gang is in reference to the social justice of giving the works of one to the hand of those refusing to fend for themselves. Now it must be reminded that there are a few that cannot fend for themselves, but the many that don't tend to render a falseness to those that won't.

Can't and won't are words that can be overcome. Yet in order to do so, one has to stand up for what is right. Then they have to ask themselves what is right. Engrained in our minds at a young age we learn the difference between right and wrong. Let's just venture the thought of a group of children in elementary school. The teacher can't take the grade of one and give it to another without the explanation of the fairness in the act.

Back to the issue of the current administration and its crises points. The wars, gas price accusations, and the tax issues have taken its toll upon the minds of the citizenry. How far will they push their agenda upon us? They are free to point the finger, yet find no guilt in their own hands.

Just this past week, AG Holder assessed the situation dealing with fuel prices. He had the audacity of stating that the administration wanted to ensure that the people were not burdened by the possible gouging of the fuel pushers over the consumer. To that, I ask what about the gouging of “BIG government” upon the low profit margin of the producers.

Yes, it is true these producers make huge profits. From my miniscule research, I have determined that these same companies make a very low percentage of profit in comparison to government-sanctioned GE, or what about Blackberry? There are many other targets that should possibly be eyed for profit gouging. Perhaps we should even look at “BIG government” itself. Have they not gouged taxpayers for what they have?

I have to say the true criminals are in government. They are first to warn against any disagreement on their policies, yet tread upon the freedom and rights of all true authority. The administration wants to take and take with no good returns. All we hear is the wanton encouragement for us to conserve and yet we see them splurging on congeniality of their own greed.

It was OUR vote that put them their, and it will be OUR vote that will decide the future of their encroachment. So, it can only be reasoned that the fault is truly ours. Yet, all faults can be made right. When the dear President said in a statement regarding the economy, “...we all have to cut back.” I have cut back, and I am sure you have done the same. The First Family has indulged upon OUR hospitality long enough. Do I have to ask how many vacations they have tendered since the beginning of the down-trodden Obama administration?

Not to mention the fact that we were promised an end to the foreign actions as wars. We started out with two fronts and now with the ignorant abounding of a lack of sense and the lurking of a “Me” (Obama) complex, we have ventured into another front in Libya. As I write this, we are entangling the bite of another front in Syria. No Syria has not been engaged yet, but bureaucratic maneuvering has begun. Where will it stop? Must we befriend every aggression out there?

The “Print and Spend” agenda has to be ceased. The printing press is not the answer to OUR problems. The answer is, “STOP SPENDING”. Why not try some real cutbacks? We have been taxed into submission. The taxing is not only of the money, it is upon the mind as well. Was it not the taxing without proper representation that fluxed the “Spirit of '76”?

I know that I will be affronted with accusations on this opinion, yet I stand strong in my opinion and beliefs. This person in the seat of OUR highest chair is the WORST to ever sit upon such. His courtesans and cronies are the path to utter failure and humiliation for OUR Grand Republic.

As always, I bring my opinion to the table. Where is yours?

Is there really a question?

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Sat, 02 Apr 2011 04:24:00 +0000

All the talk seems to be the question of whether or not the President is a natural-born citizen. As more time goes by, I find myself wondering the same thing. Is he, or isn't he? If he is then why all the secrecy. The suspense is tearing this Grand Republic to pieces.

In this writing, I will lead with the perspective of those around me. These thoughts vary from person to person. Every one of them, a ventured guess. There are even a few who just don't care.

There are several schools of thought. All of them interesting, yet there can be only one conclusive outcome. With this being said, I am by no means lending precedence on any of these theories. As always, I am of my own opinion.

Let us put this into perspective. What would come of his not being a citizen? If it were so, the cleaning crew (elitist bureaucracy) would move to silence such proof. They would not allow such to show their lack of vetting. Not to mention there would be an unrecoverable instance of scandal that could not be undone.

Though it is true he has usurped the authority of the Constitution, I find myself of the thought that it is a mere political ploy. He is not politically inclined enough to hold his arrogance to a thought. He is unable to differentiate myth from reality. It is thought that he is enamored with his own ego. It is true he is anointed, yet not by the hand of a spiritual being. His ego would not allow any other to anoint other than by his own hand.

As you can see, I am not of a liking to him or his socialist agenda. I for one never fell prey to his campaign rhetoric. The banter of a fool and his cronies only lend to that of a puppet on a string. To find the truth we would have to find the puppet-master. I will leave that for another discussion.

There has been a quote that I use quite often. “Every lie or rumor has a ring of the truth.” He has mouthed lie after lie. Promises, unmade and broken. The man speaks with an affirmative tone, yet undeniably has no answer.

As to the matter of birth, what is he hiding? Is he ashamed of something? Or is there a reality that would shatter his personal situation? Who else has he lied to? Perhaps his own wife, Michelle?

For purposes of insight, let us now venture to another light. Is it a mere re-election ploy? Perhaps a show of good faith, proposed at a precise time to seal an “I-Told-You-So!” lock on a Party primary. Then even to a possible win in the General Election.

The ploy is quite feasible. Why else would he allow for his being to be downtrodden, in such a manner? With the total chaos of a failed administration, this could be his only possibility for a political victory. His show of a long-form birth certificate would definitely give him the egotistical “I'm right, you're wrong” laugh. Whether it would be real, or not that is for another day.

We may never know the truth. At least not from Washington. There will always be conspiracy theories, and many will be untold in truth or legend. One thing is for sure. He will be noted as the worst President in the history of OUR great nation. His failed policies have insured his fate as such.

It is time to stand up and question the authoritarian agenda of the current bureaucracy. We must give voice those that can't or won't do so for themselves. The burdens we present, will be burdened even more so on the youth of today and tomorrow. I for one am ready to take the blame for what we have allowed to happen to OUR nation. What about you?

I am most definitely not speaking of a combative rebellion, yet that of a non-aggressive revolution. The voice of the people will prevail. Through this there will be an insurance of Life and Liberty.

In closing I would set to mind the thought that socialist policies and teleprompters are all that the administration has as a legacy, and they have both show themselves at fault. With this I will end the banter and just make a point that as always, “I support and defend the right of others to have and voice opinion, as I am and will give mine. Opinion is one with Life and Liberty!”

“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.”--Samuel Adams

Hypocrisy of choice!

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 04:07:00 +0000

The Tea Party has again been affronted as that of attacking women's rights. If you would believe the word of one blogger, who seems to be ignorant of the truth yet passes her hypocrisy on to others as a self-vindicating guilt. Somehow she has taken a statement by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, in his questioning of a ranking Energy Department staffer. If this blogger (Chelsea Hoffman) would have listened to the whole of the statement she might be able to undertake the meaning and leading process of such statement.

Her article lead with accusatory references as to the conservative, and how they attack the woman's womb by virtue of the right to purchase certain light bulbs. These references were to the White House administration and the respective departments of government in their over-reaching usurping the rights of the individual. The point Rand Paul was trying to make was clear and respective to those acting in total disregard to the Constitution.

Senator Paul also referenced his belief that low-flow toilets are a perfect example of forced conservation, vice that of voluntary conservation. Ms. Hoffman considers the rights of the individual as irrelevant. In her own ignorance, she has thrown her own banter of mundane crap in the idea of pushing her woman's womb diatribe.

I don't know about others, but I for one am not of the ilk to allow for such intrusion into my personal life. There is no choice, when it comes to the dealings of this administration. They deem themselves to be better suited to live your lives, rather than you, your own. Rand Paul was only reiterating the voice of this opinion. Yes, Ms. Hoffman, I said opinion. My opinion is just as important as yours is to you.

There is one difference in our opinions. I consider my opinion as just that an opinion, and you consider yours to be of fact. That is the great part about this great nation. We have that opinion by virtue of the founding of a free nation. Much to your dismay, we still have the right to argue our points. At least until your elitist administration dissolves the right of such.

As Ms. Hoffman generously attributed as ilk, there is every opportunity for her to prove her own ilk. It is highly doubted that she would want a truly defined descriptive of her woman's womb views. The truth will emerge, one way or the other. No matter the lie, there is always a ring of such truth.

This is not a matter of socialism, communism, or the incitement of fear. Nor is it a sway, as Ms. Hoffman calls it, to lure away from liberal agenda. She claims the hypocrisy in the conservative using their point, while she uses the same startegy to push her own agenda. This whole diatribe is not about flushing toilets, light bulbs, or the womb. It is by virtue of the founding belief of America, itself. The freedom of choice is their for all, and not distinguished upon any one topic.

In closing, I would just like to thank Ms. Hoffman in her use of selective hypocrisy. As such, I am gulity of my own hypocrisy, and that is my opinion. If any are interested in reading a single issue view of Ms. Coffman, I am enclosing a link to her article: Chelsea Hoffman

“Choice by the people themselves is not generally distinguished for its wisdom.”--Thomas Jefferson

Sense and sensibility...or the lack of!

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 02:11:00 +0000

Sense and sensibility. There seems to be a lack of such in the minds of our elected representatives. At all levels of government, common sense is a rarely used characteristic in the same. The clamour to do the right thing always ends up the wrong answer.

Whether it be local, or at the national level, OUR elected ones act as they know better than that of the People. The talk of cutting the bidget always leads to more spending, while the call to the People always infers them giving up more of their livelihood. Why does it always mean OUR sacrifice and not theirs?

We are asked to subsist with less, while these same elected representatives draft upon that which is not theirs to draft. I know my sacrifice, as do you. Yet, I am unable to see their sacrifice. Have you seen it?

The next time we are asked to sacrifice, ask yourselves how this will effect their being. The truth be seen, We will be the sacrifice. Just ponder the un-named state legislature caucuses fleeing their duties and obligations, in a so-called cause of the People. This is not for the People, for if itwas they would stand and fight. It is merely a fear of not getting their way. Let this not be just a pointed direction towards Democrats, but to the whole of the "duopoly". The GOP is just as guilty as those that have fled their duties of such.

With that being said, let me move on to the lack of sense at the executive level of the national government. OUR lackluster President is now posturing the possibilities of alleviating the burdens of fuel costs by opening fuel reserves. WHAT? I thought he was hardset against such malfeasance. It must be pondered, could this be his ploy to set the stage for a re-election bid? That will soon be answered.

As for the President's further review, he has touched upon certain aspects that are noted now as failed campaign promises. Of these are the Guantanamo Bay detainees being tried by military courts. It was thought to be ended by now, yet the two-year ban seems to have been lifted and the continuance of such will be continued. This is a definite nod of failure on his part of allowing such TERRORISTS being tried as with the rights of the Citizens' court. Like it, or not it is a mass failure.

Not to mention, his lack of sense on the issue of forced purchase healthcare upon the citizenry. Although the court ruling against the hapless agenda, the POTUS continues his plight with disdain to the People's court. It brings to thought the acts of another Democrat President. That man would be Andrew Jackson and his rhetoric of, "...[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As with Obama, Jackson was setting plight upon a people, without due rule of law and accordance to the Constitution.

To further the disdain for OUR own domestic problems, the President is reportedly pondering the use of military force in foreign matters. This force being pondered for Libya. Why is it that this man and his cronies, as well as other members of the "duopoly" seem to care more for foreign matters than to the matter of domestic affairs. Where is the sense in that?

In answer to the above, I would like make it clear that We the People deserve and expect this sense and sensibility, not the lack of."

In closing I would like to quote Thomas Jefferson, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

"REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!"

We are the Constitution!

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Sat, 26 Feb 2011 13:52:00 +0000

There comes a time when enough is definitely, enough.

It seems that some (certain Indiana Assemblymen) assume that they are untouchable. In retort to their actions or inaction, I am going to set upon the re-education of these so-called representatives. The use of their own rules and regualtions will be used to allow for such.

The Indiana Constitution lays out a distinct, yet simple rule of law in all facets of We the people, and to that of the elected representatives of such. Let me open with The Preamble: "TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, greatful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution."

This preamble shows a clear hierarchy of its founding authority. We, the People, are that standing authority. Thus, the absent Assemblymen have NO allowance to move for governance away from direct supervision of this electorate. By leaving the State, they have aligned for a vacancy in OUR seat of government.

Now, if we read further into the document it clearly brings about a concise measure of understanding. Article 1. Is a lead-in as "THE" Bill of Rights. Section 1. "WE DECLARE...the people have, at all times, an indefeasible right to alter and reform their government." Again the People are declared the absolute authority. Section 21 alludes to a person's property, and being Citizen of this State thus sets a premise of the Assemblymen being in violation of such by virtue of not performing their duties as representaive of the electorate. In short, they have taken (stalled) the right of "Citizenry" in their right to have direct and exact contact with representatives of the law of Indiana.

The absence of such Assemblymen has led to the presumption of privilege and immunity thus mentioned in Section 23. This assumption can be rendered and deemed feasible by the act to that unreciprocated to that of the Citizenry.

The basic operation of law has been hindered, thus allowing for a "de facto" House Chamber. A direct inhibition of the duties of the General Assembly, as a whole. Section 26 clearly shows that the deserting representatives have rendered a "de jure" caucus in lieu of a chamber assembly.

Any law, or mockery thereof, inhibiting the people from instructing their representative is clearly voided and dis-allowed by virtue of Section 31. The renegade caucus, in state, or otherwise is an obstruction to OUR right to redress or instruct OUR representatives.

Article 4. Section 9. The sessions of the General Assembly shall be held at the capitol of the State, commencing on the Tuesday next after the second Monday in January of each year in which the General Assembly meets unless a different day or place shall have been appointed by law. But if, in the opinion of the Governor, the public welfare shall require it, he may, at any time by proclamation, call a special session. The length and frequency of the sessions of the General Assembly shall be fixed by law. [No session of Assembly shall be met anywhere but that of the Capitol, unless otherwise stated in law. These fleeing representatives are in open violation of their own duties and responsibilities.]

They have succeeded in a block of the Quorum call. Thus inhibiting the House Chamber from a continuance of business. Such inhibition summarily shuts down the legislative body as a whole. All regulations of such are noted in Article 4. Section 11. Let it be known that in refusing to perform their assigned duties as assigned by the Constitution, that pay should be relinquished.

The failure of the Governor to act in regards to this manner shall be brought forth. Article 5. Section 16. The Governor shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed. [Clearly this is authority to authorize the apprehension of such violators. It is the Governor's to act upon any summary inhibition of government body.]

In closing, I have to say that I find the inaction of any governing body to be summarily ill-fitted for OUR citizenry. The Indiana Constitution, as well as the United States Constitution allows for the defense of such citizenry and the upholding of the laws of such. Accountability and Responsibility goes for the governing body as well as for that of We the People. That is why it is so important to keep in mind that we are said to be a three-branch government yet, we should understand the reality that we are definitely that of four branches: Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and Citizen (not necessarily in that order).

"One without the other is nonexistent"--D Dillard

Couples Who Pray by SQuire Rushnell and Louise DuArt

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 02:10:00 +0000

Couples who pray. A fine introduction to an intimate act of prayer in a couples relationship. As the authors lay out their inspirational ideals through the power of prayer, they show it as an intimate act of spirituality. Therefore, the couple shows their own intimacy between each other in the openness of their sharing of such spirituality.

As with the physical, the couple brings prayer as a nurturing towards a full spiritual awareness. Prayer will lay reason to the bond between this couple. The authors bring to the forefront, an awareness of ones intimate needs. These needs being shown will allow for the mutual understanding of each other.

The use of an included 40 day prayer challenge sets the stage for a habit of contributed prayer. Through the use of this challenge, a transformation of ones own self can only grow stronger. With just five minutes a day, for forty days, joint prayer is suggested as a means to encourage the bond between couples.

It is not for me to say whether this challenge is good for the couple, yet I still believe that prayer is an intimate act better left to ones self. There is however an understanding how the spiritual sensibility in prayer can enlighten any relationship.

Prayer and desire bring about an inspirational bonding that can only be increased with prayer. Couples who pray seems to parlay the sense that prayer as a couple will endeavor to bring about an ever-nurturing strength in this relationship. It can be brought to light that this act can be used to nurture other relationships, such as that of the parent to the child, as well.

I would definitely recommend this book as a guideline, and not as a standard. As the act of prayer has to be acted on as ones own spirituality can direct. The use of celebrity couples only gave a physical feel for the relationship, and had no effect on my review of such.

Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher through the BookSneeze®.com book review bloggers program. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255 : “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”

Compromise on the backs of plight.

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 02:39:00 +0000

The people have spoken, yet the representative ears are void of any cognizant understanding. I was to the understanding that the mid-term election results were a reckoning voice. Tell that to the elected-to-be!

Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. The descriptive title is just that, a label. All are nothing more than that of "compromisors". They all use the plight of the citizen to endeavor their agendas. Their identities are ever-elusive to the truth. Some have even named themselves with monikers such as "No Labels", yet they are still using their duopoly monikers (Republican and Democrat).

Many of them even partook of the anti-establishment Tea Party, yet still kept their ever-beloved party affiliations. There is a misconception about the Tea party movement. It is not a political affiliation, but that of a united voice of the people. Party affiliation has nothing to do with this movement, yet the so-called conservative right have tried to take the credit for this movement. Let us not forget the liberal left, they are not innocent in this reasoning. They have tried to stifle the people's voice by touting seditious descriptives of the partakers of the Tea Party.

Yes, I said "SEDITIOUS"!

Now that I received a moment of your attention, I will explain. Some will say that I do not understand the meaning of sedition. The definition is merely an act against authority. Who is the true authority? If you have any understanding of the Constitution, or even the Declaration of Independence, then will know that it is clearly an undertaking of a standing of the people over that of a tyrannical point of power. To be more concise, "We the people..." are the true sovereign authority.

This being said, these elected representatives touting banters of racism, sexism, and the abundantly used anti-American rhetoric to disenfranchise the will of the people is sedition, in every facet of the sense. Many will say that this word is a descriptive of the government, and not that of the constituent. I challenge anyone to show where it says in the Constitution, that the true authority is inherent anywhere other than that of the people.

To those that lack the comrehension of this statement, I will quote from the Constitution itself. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Some might recognize this sentence. Well, we all should. It is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is the first of ten amendments noted as the "Bill of Rights".

Interestingly, the title itself is an explanation all its own. The "BILL OF RIGHTS". If that is not reason enough to show "We the people..." as the defining authority of this grand republic. I challenge any who disagree, to educate me.

As I have stated in the past, I am not a legal scholar. With this being said, I am a citizen and sovereign in my right to redress my elected government. As you are as well, sovereign in your own right. The tyrannical bodies affronting the plight of the citizen don't want you to understand this.

It is OUR duty and responsibility to understand the Constitution, and all of its inherents. The inherent being the will of "We the people...".

This writing is an envoked right of my First Amendment rights of free speech. Not to memtion the right to redress any grievance, found to be questionable. This right is inherent with the action of opinion. That is just what it is, "My Opinion!"

Take another bow...

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 00:14:00 +0000

Endorsement, that brings a quick smile to my face. The President seems to not understand that his endorsement means nothing. What could be worse for the nation of India, than this arrogant man to give his endorsement. We all saw what happened to his endorsements in the recent midterms. With his endorsement, he has unknowingly brought about the probable grumbling of an already uneasy China. How will China react to the matter of a permanent U. N Security Council seat?

The ever-growing economy of India assures a growth of influence on both trade and climate change. The latter being an Obama agenda. Just where is he going with this pushed influence. As if he actually has any world influence.

His fundamental change is "NOT" working at home, and he obnoxiously believes he can toss his version of fundamental upon the world. He has evidently ascended the clouds of his own footsteps, in believing he can teach his idea of democracy to that of the world's largest democracy, India. "Quick, someone grab him from that stairway to the clouds before he hurts his ego!"

President Obama is trying to teach accountability and responsibility to people of the world, and that is a subject he does not understand. So, he is in no position to suggest any fixes when he cannot even fix the problems in his electorate country. Ten days, will it be enough time to digest his lack of forthcoming in progressive reform.

What are the other security council members thinking about his endorsement? I can honestly say that the vote will not immediately be put to a vote. Stacking the courts and that of the U. N. will only lead to the One World agenda.

He believes that India offers benefits that can be enhanced by a multi-billion trade deal. Is this reassurance enough?

Obama has set the groundwork for what could be seen as a potential trade war between the markets of both India and China. Does anyone have to ask where this trade war would lead? It can only be a mere step towards derision.

The American entourage has an estimated compliment of security, aides, diplomats and business executives. I will not try to estimate the cost to the taxpayer, but will assume the cost is unwarranted. What does he think he is doing spending OUR dollars on nothing more than another vacation for the Obama household. All at the cost of stolen tax dollars.

During the ten day economic tour, he will most-assuredly attend the G20 summit. He will arrogantly push for protective measures against the deavaluing of world currencies. His arrogance shows through with this agenda being that he has a more pressing need at home to protect our dollar value. This being said, he should stop the printing press, and permanently extend the current tax cuts.

One thing can be assured, the new trade deal can only harm the United States. The President will relinquish our trade authority for that of the foreign market. Meaning, any restrictions would only hinder the domestic market while powering the international market.

So, the proof is in the tale. Obama has taken another bow!

As always, I am making statement of One Man's Opinion!

A New Declaration

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:19:00 +0000

The fervor of the mid-term elections are behind us now. It would be thought that all is well. Not in the world of politics. The finger-pointing has only begun anew. The media is making light of the facts of the election results. They seem to undertake an inappropriate means of these results. How they ire the loss of their liberal majority.

Even the liberal should admit the loss is a statement of the people. Yet will they? That is an easy "No". The liberal elitist has begun the game of reasoning the cause of the people. "The people just didn't understand that the plan to straighten America's problems is a time consuming matter. For it was all the bad, big business, GOP fatcats that assured in the demise of the economy." That is what they want you to think. Well, maybe that was not said exactly, but is all as seems in the world of my opinion.

The first words from our ill-experienced president were that of a wish of compromise and renewal of his party's bipatisanship. Wow! Where was this compromise six months ago? I don't know what his idea of bipartisanship is, it doesn't sound good to me. His arrogance only assures of his true agenda. Whatever he might want us to believe, he is not a friend of the people. He said it himself. If you oppose him, you are therefore his enemy. We all know what this means.

Well, I know. Mr. president, you and your liberal, elitist cronies need to understand who the true authority is derived. That is, We the people. It does not matter whether you are citizen, or not. For you are the elected President. So act the part. That is if the teleprompter will allow for such. What am I saying? I forgot that our dear President is on a grand journey to procure the protection of the Asian markets. For he has shown such grand execution of saving our nation's economy, that I could see why he would be called upon to do the same for the rest of the world.

Let's face the reality of politics. He has lost face within his own party and not to mention that of the his citizen electors. He would rather spend our tax dollars on a ten day excursion than to face the American people. Has he finally shown to us, his ill-experience? Of course not. He believes he has done no wrong, and the American people have no idea what he has done for them.

I have to ask, what has he done for us? Nothing! Well, he has caused for a loss of freedom of enterprise. He has also, all but nationalized a vast market share of the automotive and banking industry. He has pushed forward a mandated purchase program for our healthcare. He has denounced Americanism as racist, bigoted, and sexist. He has accosted the citizen with undue tactics of bypassing elected legislature with that of regulatory acts.

Well, I guess I was wrong in stating he has done nothing for the American people. He has. He has relegated the citizen-sovereign to that of a mere servant of the state. That is exactly why the Declaration of Independence was written in reference to the treatment by the tyrannical monarchy of Britain. If you don't believe this is true then just try reading this grand writing.

History is repeating itself and the results of this past midterm election is a new declaration. One can only see that he and his liberal agenda can and will soon destroy OUR nation.

As always, I am setting my rights under First Amendment to affront my rights of opinion. If this opinion offends you then by all means, let me know. It will most likely not change my thought, but it will be heard. As with mine, your opinion matters. Yet it may not matter to some, it is still your opinion. That is the beauty of America.

"REFORM,REFORM, REFORM!"

No random, to it...

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 00:03:00 +0000

Random, I doubt that.

That is how the authorities are describing the barrage of rounds at the Pentagon today. Supposedly unknown suspects fired upon the military bureaucratic office building. The official report, as of this afternoon was that of a random event. There were no reports of injuries as two office windows were breached by encroaching rounds. No one was injured in the pre-dawn incident in which shots were fired into two windows at the sprawling Defense Department just across the Potomac River in suburban Virginia.

The DoD stated as there being an estimated shots fired in the predawn hours. The vast compound went immediately to lockdown status as a search of the perimeter lead to an unconfirmed conclusion.

After further investigation, bullets were found lodged in windows at various points in the government compound. The barrage did not penetrate, but lodged in the surrounding perimeter. The weapon, or weapons used are unknown at this point.

Possibilities linger in the thought that the shooting may be related to the earlier shooting at the National Museum in Virginia. The museum incident was believed to be done by a rifle as well, yet not confirmed. As with the current Pentagon incident, the shots are believed to have occured in the early morning hours.

The convergence of law enforcement officers (LEO) from all contingents of government participated in the lockdown and perimeter evidence sweep. A block of officers swept through a nearby grassy area searching for clues in the shooting.

Excuse my wry humor, but I have to say, "Is this another grassy knoll incident?"

Is it really possible that our government is so inept as to speculate as to the possible relation of the two incidents? The bureaucrats seem to lay the agenda that they are all aware of their surroundings, yet they cannot even secure the governmental centre of our government.

Now, I know that I will catch wrath for this statement. Come on, how could they not know more. I have been in these areas, and they are some of the most security sensitive locales in our nation. They won't even allow you to loiter long enough to take a picture without conveying the message of you being a security risk.

It all sounds like a lot of scatter to me. Yet that is my opinion.

I am not stirring a conspracy theory, but a lot less has brought more thoughts of such. "Citizen, beware!. The crisis moment could be upon us in this midterm election cycle. This crisis could be the series of events that could change the outcome of such elections." Well, that is for you to decide.

I find it very interesting that such activity has gone unhindered. The aspect that such activities is lackluster in the approach of our government-relayed impending terrorist activity alerts. Is it a ploy? Or could it be a test run for further terrorist acts. In all accords we need to be aware of our surroundings. When I say "we", I am relaying that as inferring to both citizen and government.

As always, I am drawing forth on my First Amendment right of free speech, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

One man's opinion! Fact, or fiction. It is his to make.

One of the party, or a party of one?

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Sun, 17 Oct 2010 22:19:00 +0000

To some there is no obvious answer to the midterm election dilemma. Who is the better of those campaigners? Why should I vote for one over the other? Is there an end to this madness?

There is no true given for any of these questions. The best advice that one might receive is to vote the issues and not the party line. Do your research. In this day and age, information is at the fingertips. In moments a mere statement can be verified and/or denied.

Yet even in the age of multimedia, there are those who believe all that is said towards them. This same individual wants to blame those elected for all that happens, or perhaps does not. The true blame can be squarely placed upon these misinformed voters. Yes, you. We, the citizen, are wholly responsible for the established usurpation of the Constitution, and the rights founded therein.

It can be easily seen how one might take our rights and privileges for granted. As I see it, in order to truly take advantage of something there has to be a founding understanding of such. It is a shame that most citizens are lacking in the foundational meaning of these privileges.

Election day is just around the bend, and your independence is at hand. The representative body-elect will set the motion of things to be. These motions will endeavor to set the key for future generations. Every vote, no matter how it is slated, will effect generations to come. So, that vote that you might slate should be in consideration of the future. Our children, and their children should be in thought while the vote is considered.

How will you vote? Or, even more important are you going to? Are you willing to lose one right or privilege for that of another? The individual that gets your vote might raise your taxes, or possibly lower the same. Are you going to vote for the incumbent that allowed for such atrocities against the nation's foundings? Or, will you elect a representative who will make the proper change. This change can only occur with the proper vote to bring about the rebirth of tradition. This tradition is the achievement of the American way.

There will be those that want you to believe that tradition is bad. Well, in some cases it might be. In general tradition is a good thing. Examples of this tradition might be the Pledge of Allegiance, or perhaps the religious freedoms of the founders. Now, let me set my explanation of the aforementioned freedoms. This nation was founded upon Christian ideals and the free will to ascertain these religious freedoms.

Yes, I am Christian. This does not mean that I have set judgement upon any other religion or denomination. It is just my not believing they might do. We are in a nation that has set upon an indifference to religion, and allows for the secure practice thereof.

One might ask what this has to do with the election. It's like this. The belief system of one might lead upon their decision on matters of political leanings. That is what America is all about, right. My beliefs lead my political decsions and so does does yours. It doesn't matter, as long as you vote for your beliefs, and not that of another.

It is your vote and that cannot be taken from you. After every election cycle you hear complaints of how they stole the election, or they took someones vote. The answer is, "NO". Your vote has to be given, and that is what you do.

The matter of elections is a personal and private matter. Your vote is yours to do with as you please. So, use it wisely and vote your needs and wants. There are lobbyists from far and wide that campaign for certain individuals, and they care not for others of different opinion. The only concern of any lobbyist is that within their voting district, and not from another. Your vote is for you, yours, and your community. As is easily understood, your vote matters not anywhere else but in that of your own district.

There is not a day that I am not approached by someone asking me of my opinion on a candidate from another state or district, and I have to say, "I don't care, though I do have opinion on matters relating to my views."

I am not uncaring or indifferent, I am just being sensible. It is my concern that I should be able to have a true representative of my beliefs and values. As you should as well. So vote your mind, it is your right and privilege. Don't let it go to waste.

Don't vote yes. Use the vote of "NO" to show your support. Slate against the anti-you vote. It is normal for a person to vote for one like themselves who might understand them and theirs.

Besides why would you vote for someone who has no idea of your plight. An example would be the attendance of a debate of vying candidates. As you observe the candidates, you might ask yourself of the attire in their dress. If you are wearing blue jeans and a t-shirt, why would you want that candidate telling you that he or she understands you when they are wearing a $10,000 suit. The same would be if you were wearing that $10, 000 suit, why would you expect the candidate wearing blue jeans and t-shirt to understand you.

Most of the time all the reasoning needed is to compare the candidate to yourself. What does that individual represent to you? Have they ever had to scrimp by, payday to payday. Or, perhaps the need to make payroll? The answer is for you to decide, and I am not going to tell you how to slate your vote. Just vote your conscience.

As you are waiting to cast the ballot ask yourself just one question. Are you one of the party? Or, are you a party of one? It is your decision, and your childrens' future. We cannot be afraid to say, "NO".

Thank you for allowing me to voice my concerns. Allowing for the defense of our rights and privileges I am closing with the moniker, "REFORM, REFORM, REFORM!"

...true given authority

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 00:33:00 +0000

It can be seen in today's society that nothing is apolitical. Whether it be religion, school, Barack Obama, or the Tea Party, none are out of range.

The endless rhetoric of racism and bigotry can be heard in resolve to the mere truth of disagreement. It is ideological in my belief that America itself was founded on grounds of disagreement. Was it not a disagreement that stirred rebellion by the colonials against their faraway overlords?

Why must one use such rhetoric as a defense against opposition? While I am of a definite political bias, the mere idea that my opposing views on any matter are not racist but of a view of the First Amendment. The same accusers are also the very elected officials that are appointed of, for, and by the people. Therefore, We the people are the true given authority.

These same officials tend to treat us as if we were mere imbeciles. Most everyone in the elitist league and consider themselves as overlords, and not elected officials. Take Baron Hill, he has the nerve to tell us not to tell him how to run his office. Yet he has no problem in telling others how to run theirs. Those in the likes of Mr. Hill, just find themselves out of work much like the many constituents that are unemployed as well.

If you oppose the views of Barack Obama, then you are a racist. The same goes for the Rangel matter of ethics violations. If you disagree, you are un-American, racist, and uneducated. That is how they see us.

Some might disagree with me, call me racist, and abhor my beliefs. Yet I am citizen sovereign in my own right. As are you. The Constitution is the guarantor of this right. Does the Constitution not state the fact that it is of, for, and by the people?

I don't blame the President for his agenda, and the actions related. He is but a mere man in a position of prestige. The real power broker just happens to be Congress. The elected representatives in these houses are able to counter any and all activity by the sitting President. Are they not?

Yet I do blame the President for his race-baiting. He has the inept ability to hide behind the nation's past racial and social tensions. He accuses all that oppose him of being anti-government. Has he ever thought that he might just be wrong? What am I thinking, of course not!

Somewhere in his life he began to hate America and all aspects of life within such. Is there anything short of the total destruction of our nation that would appease him? At times I find myself wondering if he was brokering our sovereignty to the likes of the United Nations, and the likes.

Not to let all blame fall upon the the left-leaning President, I find fault in the other members of our elected officials. Those in position of people granted authority such as Senators and Representatives, are also to blame. The current fault is upon the heads of Democrats. The Democrats are in an overwhelming headship of the majority in all houses, including the WhiteHouse.

This being said, why is it that these same headships want blame others for uncanny inability to forward their hard-pressed agenda? They always throw blame upon the lackluster minority members. That is where the bi-partisan antics begin. It doesn't really matter which party is in control, the partisan politics begin.

The Republicans had their chance in years past and all they did was momentary and their own partisan agendas were pushed. The truth is they are all the same, a duopoly, you might say. Two branches of the same party. Do they ever relinquish the real authority? Well maybe the headship, but not without backroom dealings of earmarks and committee seats.

So, in conclusion I ponder the idea of We the people...

We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What a masterful sense of the word. We the People says it all. What does it say to you? To make reason of my bantering, We the People are the one and only authority, with the blessing of God Almighty.

“REFORM! REFORM! REFORM!”

Just do the right thing!

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 22:56:00 +0000

It was September of last year that a Capitol Hill power broker remarked, “Why do we have to wait for the right to vote? Why can't we get what God has given us? That is the right to live as human beings and not negotiate with white southerners and not count the votes. Just do the right thing.”

Rep. Charles Rangel was quite possibly the most powerful member in Congress. That is as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. For those of you who may not know how important this committee is, think of it as the policy police. Ways and means happens to set policy for Social Security, Welfare, Child Support, Medicare, and Foster Care. These issues among others sets this committee and it's members in prestigious positions. Not to mention the ease of campaign contribution solicitation.

Well, Mr. Rangel most probably took this position for all it was worth, at least as the accusatory coverup of his own ethics violations were concerned. Yet like most criminal activity, the violation will encroach the culprit in due time. However most of us could not make a deal to defer such penalties. Even though no deal has been brokered as of yet, he is still in light of elitist politics. The insiders are safe among their own, and therefore need to be scrutinized by the citizenry.

The duopoly have shown light to the partisan politics in play. The Republicans are saying the time for deal-making is done, while the Democrats are standing firm in protection of their campaigns in the mid-terms coming this November. In truth it is all but for the people, and setting stage for the campaign trail.

The truth needs to be heard, and the only way to hear it is through public hearings. Not just a Congressional investigation, but that of a public trial. These ethics violations are a crime against the citizenry. He took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Therefore, any crimes committed are crimes against the very human beings that elected him to office.

The so-called ethics violations are nothing more than criminal acts. As such they should be brought to trial as fraud and embezzlement. Some say this might be harsh. As for myself, he is a criminal and has no more special privilege than of the citizen-elector.

Lets take a look at these violations. First, the infamous tax evasion. He failed to account for rental properties in a foreign country. Thus failing to pay taxes. Keep in mind the House of Representatives sets policy for taxation, its rules and regulations. Therefore they set the limitations on penalties and such.

Second, the illicit use of his public office to secure funding for a public policy institute. He is accused of securing such funding by the use of official letterhead to solicit such funds. A definite ethics violation, wouldn't you say?

Third, use of public office and committee chairmanship to secure illicit campaign contributions. Enough said?

The above mentioned violations are just a mere point of resolve. In all there are thirteen ethics violations brought to light as House members prepare the stage for a probable long trial. That is if backroom politics doesn't allow for such as to that of get out of jail free card. He could possibly walk away untarnished except for his pride.

All in all, one could say that the average citizen would be prosecuted for such criminal activity. At least a elitist rebuke from a member of the government. It seems they see us as mere servants and peons, while their careered and money-burdened peers partake of the spoils of elected position.

I see it as nothing more than a crime of circumstance, and as a crime nonetheless. Why should we allow for a sitting public servant maneuver his way through the system via the connection to the elitist peers of government and money? Where is the outrage? If that were you, or I, the media would have us convicted before the trial could be scheduled. Where are the so-called defenders of the Constitution?

We elected them, yet they hold themselves beyond reproach. A violation of the public trust should be carried to light as to that of a high crime. A crime against the Constitution, the establishment of government, and therefore a crime against the citizen sovereign.

We the people will be heard. Allowance for backroom deals and compromises will not be tolerated. It is time to hold these, and all individuals, accountable and responsible. That is the problem with all levels of government. No accountability and responsibility for their actions. Oh, we are just as guilty as they are. When have we held ourselves accountable, or even responsible?

“Mr. Rangel, I ask of you to do the right thing. As you have been quoted as saying this in explanation of another matter.”

In closing, I am going to ask that every American voice their reaction. Let your voice be heard, far and wide. Don't allow the Capitol Hill switchboard to remain silent. The days technology allows for any number of communications that can be used to support redress of grievance.

One Man's Opinion! The views mentioned are just that, opinion. As for the right of opinion, I will leave you to the First Amendment.

Immigration, and it's judicial review!

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:18:00 +0000

Today, the American citizenry have been dealt a blow to their constitutional rights protect and defend their sovereignty. This has been done by federal judge, Susan Bolton. In hearing the case for a temporary stay while case is being heard, she set a hold upon most of the Arizona Law dealing with immigration.

The state legislation has been overplayed by the liberal media, calling it a crackdown. It is however not a crackdown but that of an affirmation of the federal immigration law. Try to tell this to the elitists in OUR government.

Arizona's sovereignty has in effect been dissolved. While the state legislation is clear in its intent enforce federal laws, the powers that be want no part of any subversive attempt to tread upon their usurped authority. It should be brought to light, the question of whether any of the opposition to the state legislation even attempted to read the content of such legislation.

Already embattled Gov. Jan Brewer vows the state will most likely appeal the judge's ruling. The two sides of the situation are drawing down fairly square with party-line.

Provisions not taking effect are summarily those requiring officers to check the immigration status when enforcing the violations in other laws, requiring immigrants to carry papers at all times, and the making it illegal undocumented workers soliciting employment. To the point, no arrests on immigration status.

Not being known for my political correctness I have to ask, “If this is summarily correct as by the courts then shouldn't the federal law be placed as among the court's ruling?”

The court's decision stated reasoning as for the determination of immigrant status of individuals held for criminal acts will over-burden the federal immigration system. In review, the court has said it would violate the civil rights of those in custody for criminal activity, in the checking of their status.

The legislation is not necessarily repealed, yet most likely will not stand to the stress of the liberal agenda. What is left of the law will go into effect on Thursday.

As if the state (AZ) has not had enough pressure to repeal the law, they have been inundated with boycotts, and threats thereof. All the while they have set off a trend of other such legislation by state and local governments from across the nation. Not to mention, the legislation has brought about a supposed mass exodus of undocumented immigrants.

Be assured that many of the protesters and and human rights groups will be mounting protests, and attempts to thwart such officiating of local laws. The opposition would have used such blockades as to block federal offices dealing with immigration, from being utilized thus hindering and violating the civil rights of those they have avowed to defend. How is this going to help these undocumented immigrants, when the protesters are impeding the the quick status check?

As for international opposition, I find their intervention in OUR domestic policies an atrocity. They have their own problems to deal with. So a word to these, “...stay out of OUR affairs!”

In reality, the criminals (those on expired visas and undocumented immigrants) are the only ones worried about the legislation. What about the rights of the taxpaying citizen? What about the rights of the legal (documented) immigrants?

The arguments of the legislation dealing with racial profiling, would only revert back to federal law. If the feds don't want to enforce their own legislation, then perhaps they should repeal it. A major shift in policy is sure to come. For the liberal agenda will not allow for the sustaining of constitutional rights for the citizen, and those that choose to follow procedure in becoming documented immigrants.

Seemingly, the federal government is fearing of the several states' guarantee of sovereignty by utilizing the Tenth Amendment. This does not allude to the states' forming legislation over-riding the federal, but assisting in the enforcement of such acts. That is what sovereignty is all about.

The ruling by the U. S. District judge has unleashed a reasoning to watch for the usurpation by the lower courts of OUR sovereign rights, thus guaranteed by the Constitution. This is why recent appointments by the current and predecessor presidents having stacked the courts to a liberal, left-leaning, policy shifting court.

The court's injunction was nothing more than a play of left-leaning agenda. Nothing in the judicial review follow along with proper reasoning of the ruling.

One Man's Opinion! That is all it is. We don't have to agree, and we don't have to disagree. All that matters is the redress of grievance and the non-violent call of responsibility.

State-based racism is still just that...

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 03:04:00 +0000

Once again the state run media has overlooked the truth. Racism has been an ongoing factor in all of the current administration's policies. The latest fiasco within the Administration's Agriculture Department has shown light to another of the self-righteous President's race-based agendas. We can't let ourselves be fooled into believing that this fiasco was not a decoy to lure our attentions away from his force-fed socialization plans. All the while he is laying foundation for his total breakdown of the very founding of OUR nation.

Certain members of the press seem to think that while President Barack Obama should have been enjoying his recent legislation wins, race seemed to distract the attention away from his socialist agenda. No matter how it is ployed, this agenda would not pass scrutiny of the general public. Therefore, the only way to allow its concurrent existence is to distract OUR attention away from the truth with frivolous cries of racism and bigotry. The truth be known, the only pushed racism is that flowing the oval office itself.

Although deliberate, the President and his crony administration is lacking in scrutinized discipline. His lack of experience, along with his arrogance have eroded public approval of his policies. Most assuredly, a one-term President, he will undoubtedly aspire in his opportunistic community organizing.

Obama's own predilection has allowed for another of his uninformed bias of such matters involving his own administration. When will he learn to find out what is going on in his own establishment? It beckons me to think on who really puppeteers the White House.

These mistakes, one by one, will dis-establish the President from his ever-decreasing approval ratings. He has shown very little interest in race relations, and has actually driven race more to the forefront of the American society. It is nothing more than a matter of race-baiting and government condoned racism.

It is not at issue, the idea that a blogger was news breaker for the NAACP-Department of Agriculture speaking engagement. The real concern should be that the President and his Administration reacted to such without finding fact to the issue. Let alone the real truth, in question.

I have heard the video, in whole. To set the truth of the matter, it was an active endorsement of reverse racism. We cannot allow for the matter to be pushed aside as a mere act of false reporting. The Administration, itself led off with the immediate dismissal of the department member. Why would they fire one of their own unless they found a wrong-doing? I have found myself pondering the question, was she just a scapegoat to view the White House as innocent of all such manners? Highly probable.

It is amazing how all of this happened to take up most of a work week. Not to mention a week of the government's financial takeover (financial regulatory reform) and a laughable effort of Obama's pretending to make effort to revive the economy and reduce the unemployment problem. Be assured, it was part of his grand scheme. It's a lie!

Noting his past Presidential voicing of opinion on racism, he has managed to wrongly indict a police department, and now one of his own. When is he going to understand his duties, and to whom his responsibilities are rested. For one, he is President and not a judge. Second, he is to be responsible and accountable to the citizen. He is a public servant, and not a monarch.

I have to ask myself, "Does he even know the difference?"

Let us not forget the matter of the New Black Panther Party and their violation of civil rights and the criminal impediment of voters' rights. The charges were dropped by Attorney General Eric Holder. Although he was informed of the dismissal of charges, it is not known when and what he knew of the matter. As AG, one would think that nothing would pass through that office without knowledge of the AG. With that being said, is the AG so inept at his duties as to not be informed of what is happening in his own office? Sounds like pure irresponsibility and a clear case reasoning for dismissal from his duties as the AG.

The case might have been dismissed by the predecessor's administration, yet the Obama administration should have followed through with the matter, in order to show truth in campaign promises. That seems to be a lot to be asked for, knowing the regime and its dealings with other such matters.

President Obama should take heed to his own words, "to take our time and think these issues through."

In todays life and politics, there is no room for racism or any other bigotry. The President should have have enough respect for the people's office (President), and himself. It is time for the government to stand firm in their action/reactions in regards to racism and bigotry. I am sure there are more pressing matters that need attended to. If they can't find any, I would be more than happy to recommend some issues.

One man's opinion is just that, an opinion! We all have one and all should use it. That is what the founding of our nation was based. Opinion and freedom run together as one, and one for the other.

A newly governed Wall Street...

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 06:16:00 +0000

A newly governed Wall Street...

That is what they want you to believe. They, being the people's representatives in Washington, DC. All as the President is handed his second legislative usurpation of the rights and freedoms in OUR great nation. What glee, he must feel that his multi-faceted agenda is being force-fed to the American citizenry, one page at a time. I hope your hungry. This last feeding is 2300 pages.

Divisive in its party-splitting scenario, it was mostly upon party lines. The few dissenters of one party are merely affiliated as such, in name only. The overall vote was platform to the parties, and the very matter of concern. Clearly, it is seen as truth to the fact that neither party has regard for the common citizenry.

The repeal moniker is tossed about as if it might be an effective measure. Lets face the facts. In order for repeal to work, it has to be acted upon. The matter is purely of an authoritarian outlook. Neither party will want to relinquish the authority of such enacted measures. The taxing of the matter alone, would ensure a slush fund of vast proportions. So, I don't see an honest attempt to repeal such a measure. It is almost assured that if leadership on the hill changes hands, then there might minor attempts at recessing minor elements of the bill. Possibly even the reconsideration of the bills bureaucracy.

Yet, most opposition can be seen to opine their dissatisfaction with this enactment. The true question has to be, "Is the dissatisfaction because of its overstepping of authority, or the more likely, because it was not of your affiliated proposals?"

The left immediately showed enthusiasm as to the mere thought that the right might be deemed wrong in the people's eyes. All I can say is beware the follies of government, and don't render any measure as for any cause other than their own career orientation. Yet another reason for the need of more strenuous guidelines on term limitation, recall, and referendum.

Again, the President allowed his hatred for the traditional America. He immediately touted his discourse over the opposition's lurking views of repeal of the matter. It is all about the President and his agenda, and nothing else matters. To him, we the peole are the stepping stones to which he can subjugate the Constitution. Thus allowing for his anti-traditional American values.

Our dear, inexperienced President should mind his authority, as it is on loan from that of the people. That loan could be called in, yet would he allow for such reproach. Of course not. He continues to lay blame upon predecessors. When will he take heed that what happens from this point on is his baby and none others. He is the obvious reason for allowing the nations financial straits to spiral to an even lower state. How far will he let us fall? I would venture to say, all the way.

Where is the financial security he had promised in his campaign? Was it a lie? Does he have a stopping point? The answer is clear and concise, "NO!"

What he and his cronies refer to as financial protection is more of a government security. Reason being, the government can only prosper on your fear and reasoning so that the question of usurpation of rights and freedoms are not questioned. He states we will never again foot the bill after the enactment of this financial reform package. Are we so soon as to forget the Patriot Act?

There are three reasons for the dissenting voice of the citizenry. They are Scott Brown, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe. They are obviously the voice of "YES", and not the voice of their very campaign promises. So, if you have a problem with this matter then let them know. These dissenters are affiliated with the wrong party, or so it seems. Well, not really. the whole system is a matter of two branches of the same party.

The designation of the bill allows for so-called protections against the government-stressed, evil Wall Street. They are pleading for the measure as a defense aginst the risky activity of the finanial system as a whole. Sounds familiar doesn't it? An almost complete definitive the very government that is purporting to protecting the people and their nation.

As all is said and done, we are told that the results won't be known until the regulations and policies are taken to ground for measure. Another test of trust. What trust? I do not trust the administration or its cronies. The bill sets a so-called structure for protection of our stability. What stability? The very leadership sworn to protect us, has endeared a fear within all of the backbone of this nation. We just don't know where the next blow will be struck. Will it be us next?

It is only a matter of time before we, the citizens are struck down because of these so-called protections. A government mandate by this administration is nothing more than an atrocity to America. We the people must stand strong in our self-protection. If they (the un-representatives) can't tell us about legislations before they are enacted then we must explain it to them. Afterall it is a measure of reading, and all of those elitists are supposedly smarter than the mere peasants of this nation. What could hurt if a dummy such as myself actually read the legislation, before they rush it through? Well, maybe they might feel offended. We cannot violate their civil rights. As they say, "...to hell with our civil rights!"

As with the usual closing, I am laying out my disclaimer. The matters pertaining to all in this writing are solely my opinion, and mine alone. In regards to my belief in non-aggression in resolution of these matters stands as the proper manner of resolution, and I would all others to take heed of this advice.

Let your voice ring true in liberty.

I am not the opposition...

noreply@blogger.com (Darrell Dillard) — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:37:00 +0000

Is the American system of representative government so reprehensible as to deserve the the elitist agenda. One might assume as much, after the latest maneuvering of legislation and mandates. It must be said, "This is not my America."

The America I know, allows for differentiation and opinion. In fact it allows (no, it calls for) redress of the citizens' grievances. Yet if this right is invoked, we will be labeled as racist, terrorist, or even the ill-fated unAmerican moniker. The same can be said in regards to the elitists and their usurped authority. It is easily seen as descriptive of the actions of the current regime. The only racist remarks and ideology that can be readily seen is at the hand of the accuser.

When is opposition to an administration or to that of congress considered racism? This term is too easily pushed upon those opining the matters of OUR nation. That's right, OUR nation. It is time to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is NOT, however a toy for the unexperienced and uncaring to change with the whims of shame. Perhaps the Constitution should be read aloud, and explained to the 'haters' of the very oath they took. Yes, took (not given) as should have been. They are committing theft of OUR freedoms.

Yet it has to be asked, "Is it theft, if we allow them to do it?"

The harshness, by which I speak, is a necessity. We the people have to stand strong, and defend the Constitution. It must be understood that we will stand in defense of those unwanting, or incapable, of defending themselves. OUR childrens' future is being stolen. All, while we stand and watch.

Aggression is not the answer. It must be enforced through the upholding of the Constitution. Government sanctioned safety and security monikers will not be the answer. The results of such can be seen in the Patriot Act, Financial Reform legislation, and the ever-destructive, mandated Healthcare agenda. All matters of the Commerce clause, gone awry.

The over-burdening and unwarranted taxation upon the citizenry will only lead to discourse. It can be seen in history, how we have met with undue taxation, without due representation. Furthermore, the illicit taxes burdened upon such citizenry, is used for immoral (and illegal) funding of campaigns in foreign nations. An example of the deplorable use of OUR tax dollars, would be Obama's Kenyan abortion initiative. Unless I am misread, that would be illegal. The 2006 Siljander Amendment made abortion initiatives involving the United States government in foreign entities is illegal. Correct me, if I am wrong.

If we are taxed, it should be used for domestic initiatives, only. If it was anyone else fraudulently using such funds, it would be a crime. The Grand Embezzler should be asked of his illicit affairs of healthcare, auto manufacturing, and the manipulation of commerce fiascoes.

Why does he hate this nation? For that matter, why do any of them hate this nation? Or, do they just hate the Constitution and its freedom bearing guarantees?

I want answers. How about you? Perhaps you have questions of your own. Fine, ask them.

As for the President and his cronies, "I am not the opposition, I am the employer. If you hate my nation then you hate me. What is your answer?"